Final Post

This quarter there were a few artistic periods I really enjoy. At the beginning of Avant-Garde, the realism art I found fascinating. And the modern art I also found very interesting. There are also some key characteristic that seem to tie these two periods together. And its change, and artistic rebellion.

The realism piece I found most interesting, and most memorable is The Stone Breakers by Courbet. I absolutely loved the look of his paintings, and the meaning and messages that came from his paintings. In this particular piece, as we talked about before, has a lot of political radicalism. With emphasizing the poor, and lower-class and making them the main subject matter in a very large painting, they take up most of the canvas, are not looking at the viewer. I think paintings that are radical, and oppose the common beliefs at the time are very interesting. And with Courbet’s fine tuning to detail on these men and their surroundings- it really makes a spectacular piece. You can also see in this painting that the Courbet is slightly disinterested with perspective and depth and concentrating more on the men and the message being sent. The painting has a really flat feeling to it, especially in the background. But like I said before, the men’s clothes are very detailed, and look very realistic. 

I also really like The Gleaners by Millet, much for the same reasons above. The main subject matter is of the lower class people, who at the time, were not fit to be the center of art, where made the center of art.  This painting also has some similar traits to The Stone Breakers. None of the women are looking up, but they themselves have great detail in clothing and stance. And the background is not super clear, obviously not the main focus of the painting.

The second artistic period was the modern art period. I really enjoyed the different paths art was taking and the different questions that were being aroused at the time. What is art? Being the most interesting question personally. But the piece that I found most interesting was Fountain by Duchamp. This has been mentioned many times in class, but I found his view on art, or his portrayal of art very interesting, and I admire the steps he brought to art. I really like this piece because it caused so much controversy and there had never really been art like it before.

Over all, I like art that is changing something, and causing confusion and controversy. Although I do not think everyone’s art should do that, I think art is a very important tool when used wisely to expose problems and encourage change. And all three of  the pieces I mentioned above did that.

Jackson Pollock

I chose a piece of Jackson Pollock, first of all because I find this kind of art interesting, but also when I was in elementary school I saw a piece of his, and was fascinated with it. But I have never really looked into who he was.

Jackson Pollock started his art career at Students Art League in New York in 1929. Where from there on out become one of the best abstract artist.  Jackson Pollock’s painting No.5, 1948, is a very abstract piece that, as of 2006, was sold at one of the highest prices known for people to pay for art. It was sold at $140 Million. (New York Times; 11/11/2006, p8, 0p)

Jackson Pollock, as it says in the Art History book, page 1075, was a very trouble kid who had alcohol problems at a young age and in general was self-destruction. I think this bit of knowledge really helps you understand his art, but it is also said he paintings were about the universe. I suppose it’s a matter of opinion. It is also said that his paintings had a strong influence of surrealism, and Mexican mural artists. (http://www.beatmuseum.org/pollock - /jacksonpollock.html) 

He claims that a painting has a life of its own, but that when he paints he becomes completely absorbed in the painting. Which, looking at his paintings, I feel like many of them could be a representation of his past, what he has gone through. He also said he was inspired by the ritualistic procedure took by primitive art; apparently it was looked favorably upon to be “in” and be a part of paintings while painting them. He said “…primitive does not think consciously, but that thoughts appear” (Mythical Overtones in the Work of Jackson Pollock, page 368) Pollock talks a lot about how he is not painting that painting, but rather is with the painting, not totally aware of what he is painting until it is done.  

There is not obvious direction to his paintings, no obvious sense of time, and no definite structure. Sigfried Giedion, a European historian and critic, says Pollock’s art has a mythical time, he also claims that his paintings were not the attention of men, but rather about the universe. I understand where he gets his mythical theory, but I also think some of Pollock’s paintings come from his past. 

His painting technique was not popular at the time, but he poured and dripped his paint onto his canvas. He experimented with and without color, and with and without primed canvases. He would change it around every few year. (http://www.jackson-pollock.com/biography.html) He also did most of his paintings on a very large scale. For example this painting, No.5, 1948 has the dimensions of 95.98" x 47.99". 

I think his painting are fascinating, and I think I could look at them forever. Although no distinguishable shape or content, they are still memorizing.